Lyden v. Nike

Robert M. Lyden ProSe 18261 S.W. Fallatin Loop Aloha, OR 97007 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (971) 219-1200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ROBERT M. LYDEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

NIKE,INC. an Oregon Corporation,

Defendant.

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland Division

662 HZ

COMPLAINT FOR:

PATENT INFRINGEMENT; INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; FRAUD; CONVERSION; AND, UNJUST ENRICHMENT I RESTITUTION.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

For his complaint against Nike, Inc., Plaintiff Robert M. Lyden

("Plaintiff' or "Lyden"), states and alleges, as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a patent infringement lawsuit brought under the patent laws of the

United States, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283-85.

2. In addition, this is an unfair competition case arising under common law.

THE PARTIES

3. Robert M. Lyden is a private individual having a residence at 18261 S.W.

Fallatin Loop, Aloha, Oregon 97007, in the United States.

4. Nike, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon,

having its World Headquarters and principle place of business at One Bowerman Drive,

Beaverton, Oregon 97005, in the United States.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35

U.S. C. §§ 101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 1338(a).

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 and

the Defendant Nike, Inc. (also "Defendant" or "Nike, Inc.") is subject to personal

jurisdiction in this Court because Nike, Inc. conducts substantial business in this judicial

district including: (i) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION 2

courses of conduct, and /or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services

provided to individuals in Oregon and in this Judicial District; and (ii) committing acts of

patent infringement and/or contributing to or inducing acts of patent infringement by

others in this Judicial District (and elsewhere in Oregon and the United States).

7. Assignment of this case to the Portland Division is proper because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in this action occurred in

the Portland Division.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

(Lyden and Nike, Inc. Prior to May, 1990)

8. Lyden hereby realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-7,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

9. Plaintiff Robert M. Lyden ("Lyden") has a history as a coach, educator, and

innovator. Lyden received dual Masters' Degrees in History and Public Administration

from the University of Minnesota in 1982 and 1988, and was certified as an educator to

teach and coach K-12. In the State of Minnesota, Lyden was associated as an assistant

coach with two High School Runner's Up and one State Championship Team Title in

Track & Field, and several individual State Champions between 1982-1988. Lyden also

served as a personal coach to Mr. Steven Plasencia, who was affiliated with Nike, Inc.'s

club Athletics West in Eugene, Oregon, and a member of the U.S. Olympic Team in

Track & Field in 1988.

10. In 1988, Lyden's observations and experiences as a coach with the AIR MAX

footwear products made by Nike, Inc. led him to believe that certain improvements in


footwear cushioning and stability characteristics could be made that would benefit

runners and the general public.

11. Lyden also filed several patent applications and worked as an independent

inventor between March, 1985 and May, 1990. In this regard, between May, 1989 and

May, 1990, Lyden approached and disclosed to the late Mr. Dan Potter in Nike, Inc.'s

patents department several of Lyden's prior inventions, and these were later recited and

excluded from Nike, Inc.'s ownership under the terms found in paragraph 11 of Lyden's

employment agreement with Nike, Inc. entitled "Employee Invention And Secrecy

Agreement" which was executed on August 8, 1990, attached hereto as Exhibit A. In

particular, Lyden disclosed to Nike, Inc. Lyden's U.S. 4,674,206, attached hereto as

Exhibit B, and Potter performed some research and experiments in order to evaluate this

invention.

12. In May, 1989, Lyden also disclosed to Nike, Inc. as an independent inventor

the three dimensional shoe upper design and pattern shown in a photo which was taken

with a copy of"The Minnesota Daily" newspaper dated May 8, 1989, attached hereto as

Exhibit C, and shortly afterwards Lyden was informed by Potter that the shoe upper

pattern had been seen by Nike, Inc.'s lead designer, Mr. Tinker Hatfield, who expressed

that he liked it.

13. Between August 31, 1989 and May, 1990, Lyden also disclosed to Nike, Inc.

as an independent inventor a pending U.S. patent application serial number 410,074 filed

September 20, 1989 which matured as U.S. 5,101,580, as well as a disclosure for a

speedsuit relating to Track & Field entitled "Aerodynamic Athletic Apparel Background


For U.S. Patent Application And I OR Trademark Protection," dated August 31, 1989,

attached hereto as Exhibit D.

14. In 1990, given Lyden's demonstrated knowledge of athletics, footwear and

patents, Potter invited Lyden to apply for a position opening in the patents department at

Nike, Inc.

Factual Background, Continued

(Lyden and Nike, Inc. May, 1990 -September 9, 1996)



16. Lyden applied for the position and was hired by Nike, Inc. as "Patents and

Inventions Assistant" to assist Potter in Nike, Inc.'s patent department in May, 1990, and

Lyden then worked as a regular employee for Nike, Inc. at the world headquarters and

campus located in Beaverton, Oregon until September 9, 1996.

17. In July, 1990, Lyden was assigned to gather information for a design patent

for a shoe upper which was named the HUARCHE by Nike, Inc. designer Mr. Tinker

Hatfield.

18. Hatfield could not find the original of what he believed was his earliest

relevant drawing, but only a photocopy. All ofthe other early drawings of Hatfield

which bore close resemblance to the HUARACHE were dated June 13, 1989. In the

presence of Lyden, Hatfield then signed and backdated the photocopy of the earliest

drawing to January 13, 1989. This date was prior to Lyden's submission to Nike, Inc. of

the footwear pattern shown in Exhibit C which had been shared by Potter with Hatfield.

Lyden had no evidence to then disprove Hatfield's representation regarding the date of


his earliest relevant drawing, and so did not confront Hatfield. However, Lyden felt that

Hatfield's representation was possibly incorrect, and committed the unusual coincidence

to memory.

19. Lyden's employment agreement with Nike, Inc. was later completed and

executed on August 8, 1990, Exhibit A, and at about the same time Potter communicated

to Lyden that Nike, Inc. had no interest in purchasing or licensing Lyden's prior

inventions.

20. The shoe upper design of Hatfield commercialized by Nike, Inc. as the

HUARCHE style shoe was later the subject of several U.S. Design Patents, e.g., U.S.

Design 322,505, filed July 27, 1990, attached hereto as Exhibit E.

21. In 1990, shoe uppers having a resemblance to the HUARACHE style were not

being commercialized in the athletic footwear industry, and it can be seen that Hatfield's

U.S. Design 322,505 provided in Exhibit E resembles the earlier three dimensional shoe

upper design of Lyden shown in Exhibit C.

22. The HUARACHE shoe upper design led to the commercialization of many

later embodiments of so-called HUARACHE style athletic footwear which were

commercially successful.

23. Hatfield received a national design award for the HUARACHE shoe design.

24. Between May, 1990 and September 9, 1996, Lyden assisted both Nike, Inc.'s

in-house and external patent counsel in numerous patent litigations.

25. In the course ofthe litigation Wolverine World Wide, Inc. and Brooks Shoes,

Inc., vs. Nike, Inc. in the United States District Court For the Western District of

Michigan, Southern Division, Civil Action No. 1 :92-cv-886, which concerned the


HUARACHE style shoe upper, a former member ofNike, Inc.'s patent department found

Hatfield's original drawing relating to the HUARACHE upper photocopy which had

been backdated January 13, 1989 in Lyden's presence, but it was actually drawn on an

oversized board dated June 13, 1989, thus after the date of Lyden's submission to Nike,

Inc. in May, 1989.

26. Nike, Inc. needed to have actual ownership of the HUARACHE upper design

because the company had sold and continued to sell millions of dollars of HUARACHE

style footwear products, and so Lyden proposed to Nike, Inc. in-house patent counsel Mr.

Tom Horgan that Nike, Inc. simply pay him for one season of design work at Hatfield's

level of compensation.

27. Lyden holds Hatfield to be a talented designer, and the HUARACHE shoes

were well executed and successfully commercialized by Nike, Inc. However, it was

unfortunate not only for Lyden, but also from the standpoint ofNike, Inc.'s best interest

that the "HUARACHE affair" was not handled differently because it could have been

possible for Lyden and Nike, Inc. to have obtained utility patent protection on the

invention which would have provided a certain exclusivity, and resulted in greater sales

and profits. As discussed below in paragraph 131, Hatfield has also associated himself

with the Nike, Inc. FLYKNIT shoes which are believed to be infringing Lyden's U.S.

8,209,883, attached hereto as Exhibit QQ.

28. Nike, Inc. delayed for over a year and did not act on Lyden's proposal until

the company learned that Lyden had consulted with the law firm of renowned attorney

Mr. Gerry Spence, but shortly after becoming aware of this fact Nike, Inc. agreed to


Lyden's original suggestion and the result was the "Intellectual Property License

Agreement" dated December 19, 1997, attached hereto as Exhibit F.

29. As part of the "Intellectual Property Agreement," Exhibit F, Lyden also

granted to Nike, Inc. a non-exclusive license agreement to the invention and know-how

associated with the aerodynamic apparel disclosure of Lyden made in August, 1989,

Exhibit D, should Nike, Inc. possibly choose to make such aerodynamic apparel in the

future.

30. Between May, 1990 and September, 1996, besides assisting Nike, Inc.'s in-

house and external patent counsel with identifying patentable designs and inventions,

screening outside inventors, and assisting in various patent litigations, Lyden also made

contributions to Nike, Inc.'s research and development efforts. As a result, he is a named

inventor on four design patents and fourteen utility patents assigned to Nike, Inc.,

namely, U.S. Design 347,106, U.S. Design 347,315, U.S. Design 370,116, U.S. Design

374,341, U.S. 5,384,973, U.S. 5,425,184, U.S. 5,595,004, U.S. 5,625,964, U.S.

5,709,954, U.S. 5,729,912, U.S. 5,786,057, U.S. 5,813,146, U.S. 5,832,636, U.S.

5,843,268, U.S. 5,906,872, U.S. 5,921,004, U.S. 5,987,780, and U.S. 6,055,746.

31. In particular, the cushioning and stability related teachings associated with

U.S. 5,384,973 entitled "Sole With Articulated Forefoot," and also U.S. 5,425,184, U.S.

5,625,964, and U.S. 6,055,746 entitled "Athletic Shoe With Rearfoot Strike Zone" which

are assigned to Nike, Inc. have resulted in successful products and competitive responses

within the footwear industry which have led to improvements in the cushioning and

stability characteristics of athletic footwear for the general public.


32. Lyden had prior experience coaching young people and with a mind to

prevent injuries, he sometimes called out the deficiencies in Nike, Inc's then current

products, and sought to improve the quality and performance of athletic footwear. Lyden

held that Nike, Inc. would not be able to move forward and make future product

improvements unless the company was willing to look honestly at the deficiencies and

limitations of its product offerings. Lyden's book entitled Distance Running, a portion

being attached hereto as Exhibit FF, which was published in August, 2003 includes an

entire chapter on the subject of athletic footwear, Chapter 9, "Injuries and Athletic

Shoes."

33. Lyden's concern with product integrity and willingness to stand up for higher

quality sometimes led to Lyden being perceived by others as a difficult personality on the

campus ofNike, Inc. However, Lyden had met the co-founder ofNike, Inc., Coach Bill

Bowerman many years before and kept in contact with him, and so knew that he shared

many of the same perceptions as Lyden regarding the products ofNike, Inc.

34. As discussed in paragraph nine of Lyden's letter to Nike, Inc.'s in-house

patent counsel Mr. James Niegowski dated April21, 2010, which is attached hereto as

Exhibit Q, Lyden had suggested and made drawings resembling the later commercialized

Nike, Inc. FREE athletic shoe during the time Lyden served an employee and consultant

to Nike, Inc. between May, 1990- September 9, 1998. In this regard, one ofLyden's

early concept drawings of a footwear sole which shall be provided to the Court after

Lyden and Nike, Inc. have reached an agreement concerning the possible need of a

protective order, and then indicated as Exhibit Z, can then be reviewed and compared

with the title page of U.S. 7,392,605, by Hatfield et al., attached hereto as Exhibit AA.


35. More broadly, Lyden had advocated the creation of athletic footwear which

permitted greater natural function of the toes and forefoot, and then cited the example of

the great Australian miler Herb Elliott, 1960 Olympic Champion at 1500 meters and his

late coach Percy Cerutty. In this regard, Lyden had also modified and provided a pair of

Nike, Inc. "Foot Digs" volleyball shoes for running on grass for use by Mr. Alberto

Salazar.

36. However, when Nike, Inc. later filed for utility patents relating to the FREE

athletic shoe, Lyden was not recited as one of the named inventors. Moreover, Nike, Inc.

did not disclose to the patent examiner its own most relevant prior art patents, e.g., U.S.

5,384,973 by Lyden entitled "Sole With Articulated Forefoot," attached hereto as Exhibit

EE, and also U.S. 5,425,184, U.S. 5,625,964, and U.S. 6,055,746 entitled "Athletic Shoe

With Rearfoot Strike Zone." Nike, Inc. has since obtained several patents which relate to

FREE athletic shoes, e.g., U.S. 6,990,755, U.S. 7,171,767, U.S. 7,290,357, U.S.

7,392,605, and U.S. 7,607,241, but then withheld certain relevant prior art information

and violated Nike, Inc.'s duty of disclosure with the U.S. Patent Office during the

prosecution of these patents.

37. In brief, Lyden invented U.S. 5,384,973 which was filed on December 11,

1992 and granted on January 31, 2005, Exhibit EE, and had advocated for the

commercialization of products resembling the Nike, Inc. FREE line of athletic shoes in

the early 1990's. However, Nike, Inc. didn't launch the FREE shoe until nearly a decade

year later in 2004. When the FREE shoe proved commercially successful, Nike, Inc.

wanted to protect the "golden egg" and secure additional patent protection. However, the

disclosure of Lyden's prior art teachings to patent examiners in the U.S. Patent Office


would have made it difficult to obtain new patents with claims having broad scope, and it

was not possible to extend the statutory period for which the earlier relevant Nike, Inc.

prior art patents would be in force. Lyden's earlier inventorship and Nike, Inc.'s most

relevant prior art patents were not disclosed to the patent examiners and U.S. Patent

Office. In brief, it will be repeatedly shown in the present complaint that Nike, Inc. has

and continues to exhibit a pattern of behavior which is not consistent with the MPEP

rules and relevant patent laws of the United States.

38. Again, when Lyden first advocated many of the aforementioned inventions at

Nike, Inc., the concepts often met with internal resistance. For example, during the time

Lyden worked as a regular employee on the Nike campus, a middle level manager who is

no longer with Nike, Inc. attempted to give Lyden a poor job review and even to fire him

on account of Lyden inventing for Nike, Inc. As a result, Lyden eventually came to

believe that he could be more productive by working as an independent consultant to

Nike, Inc.

39. Between 1984 and 1988, Lyden coached and later advised Mr. Steven

Plasencia, a member ofNike, Inc.'s club Athletics West, and also of the 1988 and 1992

U.S. Olympic teams in Track & Field. In February, 1996, Plasencia, age 39, missed

making his 3rd Olympic Team by one place in the Men's Olympic Marathon Trials.

Lyden then helped Plasencia in his successful effort to obtain a coaching position at the

University ofMinnesota.

40. In May, 1996, Lyden was introduced and provided a draft copy of his then

unpublished book Distance Running to Mr. Karl Keska, a British citizen and recent

graduate of the University of Oregon. Between 1996 and 2000, Lyden then provided


occasional training advice to Keska who made the British Olympic team and placed 8th in

the 10,000 meters at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games.

41. Lyden also provided advice on training for the Boston Marathon to the former

head ofNike, Inc.'s product development group Mr. Tom Wolff.

42. In the summer of 1996, because of the politics which had existed at Nike, Inc.

regarding Lyden's efforts to invent on the company's behalf, Lyden suggested to Wolff

that Lyden instead become a % time consultant to Nike, Inc. and "invent in the garage" in

the manner ofNike, Inc.'s co-founder Coach Bill Bowerman. This suggestion was acted

upon and the result was Lyden's two year "Consulting Agreement" executed on

September 10, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit G. In this regard, Lyden's two year%

time consulting contract with Nike, Inc. then extended between September 10, 1996, and

September 10, 1998.

43. However, before leaving to become an independent consultant to Nike, Inc. in

September, 1996, Lyden was introduced during his lunch hour to Dr. Morris Mann, Mrs.

Mary Decker Slaney, and her husband Mr. Richard Slaney by Mr. Alberto Salazar in the

Boston Deli on the Nike campus. Mann had a pending patent application relating to

footwear which was later submitted to Nike, Inc. for evaluation on a non-confidential

basis which later matured as U.S. 5,864,968. Mann informed Lyden that he had been

recruited by Salazar and was assisting him with providing nutritional and medical support

for Mary Decker Slaney. Mann also informed Lyden that he was going to have a meeting

with Mr. Phil Knight, the co-founder ofNike, Inc., later that same afternoon.



(Lyden and Nike, Inc., September 10, 1996- September 10, 1998)



45. Lyden's two year% time consulting contract as an inventor for Nike, Inc.

extended between September 10, 1996, and September 10, 1998.

46. The dialogue on exercise physiology and training between Lyden and Mann

led to later personal communications from their respective homes.

47. In a subsequent conversation with Lyden, Mann revealed that he had reviewed

1984 Olympic Champion Mrs. Joan Benoit Samuelson's blood work and had used it as a

rationale for attempting to convince her to take substances to improve her health and

athletic performance, but she refused.

48. The conversations between Lyden and Mann caused Lyden to suspect that

Mann and Salazar were engaged in foul play. In this regard, Mann informed Lyden that

he had worked previously with bicyclists in Europe, but that he was "under the radar" and

so it had been necessary for Salazar to look hard in order to fmd him.

49. Mary Decker Slaney failed a drug test after the 1996 Olympic Trials

competition in Atlanta, and this was made public in the article entitled "Drug Inquiry

Drags For Angered Slaney," by Jere Longman, published in the New York Times on May

15, 1997.

50. Lyden then researched Mann's background and found that his medical license

had been revoked in the State of California, and he was a convicted felon. Accordingly,


Lyden then ordered and obtained Mann's relevant public records from the State of

California.

51. Lyden researched Mann's more recent activities and was informed that Mann

had previously worked with bicycle racing teams in Europe and had then provided a

subcutaneous bolus or capsule for the controlled time release of anabolic substances to

athletes. Lyden also learned that DHEA, a precursor to testosterone which was not then

explicitly listed as a banned substance, had been suggested by Mann for use by Nike, Inc.

sponsored athletes.

52. In June, 1997, Lyden took this information to Mr. Paul Kelly, the acting head

ofNike, Inc.'s legal department in an effort to stop the use and provision of performance

enhancing drugs, or like substances, to Nike, Inc.'s sponsored athletes, and also to thwart

certain threatened or actual legal actions that Nike, Inc. was contemplating taking or

supporting on behalf of Mary Decker Slaney against the USOC, USATF, and the IAAF.

53. Between June and September, 1997, Lyden had another conversation with

Kelly. Lyden was told by Kelly that he had followed up and talked to Salazar, who

denied any wrongdoing. Kelly also informed Lyden that he had inquired about Knight's

reasons for being at the meeting with Mann. Lyden was told by Kelly that Knight had

been curious to meet Mann due to a long term skin condition that Knight suffers.

54. The public statements made by Salazar and Knight in the Oregonian, e.g., on

September 1 7, 1997, regarding the Decker Slaney matter were inconsistent with the

relevant facts and information which had been provided by Lyden to Nike, Inc.


55. By late September, 1997, it did not appear that Nike, Inc. was confronting and

taking action to stop Salazar or Mann, and so Lyden called and questioned both Salazar

and Mann about their behavior over the telephone.

56. In October, 1997, Lyden reported his phone discussions with Mann and

Salazar to Mr. Kelly in Nike, Inc.'s legal department, and argued that any contemplated

legal actions against the USOC, USA TF, and the IAAF would be improper given the

known facts and circumstances relating to the Decker Slaney case.

57. However, despite the information that Lyden had provided to the head of

Nike, Inc.'s legal department about Mann, Salazar, and Decker Slaney in 1997, Nike, Inc.

supported her lawsuit effort against the USOC and IAAF which was filed on April 12,

1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis

Division, No. IP-99-0507-C-D/F-S.

58. On April17, 1999, Lyden received information that Knight, Mann, Salazar,

and Mrs. Joan Benoit Samuelson, the 1984 Women's Olympic Marathon Champion had

previously met on the Nike, Inc. campus, and that Mann had then discussed the possible

useofDHEA.

59. The Decker Slaney case received an unfavorable ruling in the U.S. District

Court and was later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 244

F3.d 580, where she received another unfavorable ruling on March 27, 2001.

60. Decker-Slaney then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which

declined to hear the case on October 2, 200 1.

61. Lyden was disappointed by some of the actions ofNike, Inc. regarding the

Decker Slaney matter which he believed were unethical, and not in the public interest.


62. Lyden believes that Decker Slaney was led into making certain imprudent

choices by Salazar and Mann. Having endured over a dozen surgeries in her lifetime

relating to athletic injuries she is clearly a tough and determined person. From the time

she was a 13 year old teenage prodigy, Decker Slaney has often been surrounded by older

and powerful men who have sometimes wished to exploit her attractive physical

appearance and phenomenal athletic talent for the sake of their own desires, ambitions,

and business interests. Accordingly, Lyden holds that insofar as Decker Slaney has been

misled and victimized by others she is deserving of compassion, but also public sympathy

and support.

63. During the time of Lyden's% time consulting contract with Nike between

September 10, 1996 and September 10, 1998, Lyden submitted over a dozen invention

disclosures, and provided assistance to Nike, Inc. regarding some of their patent lawsuits.

64. Upon information and belief, Nike, Inc. did not have its research and

development and design groups act upon the various invention disclosures which Lyden

had made, nor did Nike, Inc. file for patents upon the inventions that Lyden provided

during the two year term of his consultantship. The subject matter contained in several of

Lyden's invention disclosures was instead commercialized and patented by competitors

ofNike, Inc.

65. Hellerick & Bradsby Co., a.k.a. the "Louisville Slugger" brand

commercialized an inflated air bladder inside an aluminum baseball bat and was also

granted the patent U.S. 6,053,827 on April 25, 2000.

66. Lyden came to believe and feel that he was in "golden-chains," and so he had

a candid discussion with the co-founder ofNike, Inc., Coach Bill Bowerman, after a track


meet at Hayward Field in Eugene, Oregon. Bowerman then suggested that Lyden do as

he had done earlier: "Start a new company and make better products."

67. When Lyden's two year consulting contract with Nike, Inc. came up for

possible renewal in September, 1998, he was one ofthe most prolific inventors in the

history ofNike, Inc., and Lyden's wife was then expecting their first child. Nevertheless,

Nike, Inc. elected not to renew Lyden's consulting contract.

68. However, the desire to end the consulting relationship with Nike, Inc. was

mutual. Given Lyden's "golden chains" relationship with Nike, Inc.'s research and

development group, and the way Nike, Inc. had chosen to handle the Decker Slaney case,

Lyden, for his part, also wished to end his consulting relationship with Nike, Inc. and to

start his own small business


(September 10, 1998- Present)



70. From September 11, 1998- present, Lyden has been self-employed as an

inventor and consultant in the sporting goods industry. For the sake of providing some

background information, a copy of Lyden's resume I CV is attached hereto as Exhibit

cc.

71. Lyden is presently a named inventor on fifty-one issued patents, and has four

patent applications pending.


72. In July, 1999, Lyden completed a screenplay entitled "'Karadji" about the

renowned Australian miler Herb Elliott the 1960 Olympic Champion at 1500 meters and

his late Coach Percy Cerutty.

73. In January, 2000, Lyden advised an Arabian horse trainer and helped to

establish a 160 kilometer World Record in endurance riding.

74. In October, 2000, and extending until June 30, 2001, Lyden entered into an

"'Option Agreement" and also an "'Option Agreement: Negotiation Period Extension"

with FILA, Inc., which documents are attached as Exhibit H. However, the company

went up for sale and a more comprehensive intellectual property license agreement was

not concluded.

75. In March, 2002, Lyden entered into an "'Intellectual Property and Prototype

Agreement" dated March 4, 2002 with Nike, Inc., which because of certain possible

confidentiality requirements shall be provided to the Court after an agreement is reached

with Nike, Inc. regarding the possible need of a protective order, and then identified as

Exhibit I.

76. Between March- October, 2002, Lyden provided to Nike, Inc. hard copies of

Lyden's issued and pending footwear patents including: U.S. 6,449,878 filed on March

10, 2000 and granted on September, 17, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit J; U.S. patent

application serial number 09/573,121 filed on May 17, 2000 and which later matured as

U.S. 6,601,042, attached hereto as Exhibit K; provisional patent application serial

number 60/292,644 filed May 21, 2001 which included drawing figures 1-253;

provisional patent application serial number 60/345,951 filed December 29,2001 which

included drawing figures 1-360; provisional patent application serial number 60/360,784


filed March 1, 2002 including drawing figures 1-500; non-provisional patent application

serial number 10/152,402 filed on May 21, 2002 which later matured as U.S. 7,016,867,

attached hereto as Exhibit L; and, non-provisional patent application serial number

10/279,626 filed on October 24, 2002 which later matured as U.S. 7,107,235, attached

hereto as Exhibit M. All of these Lyden patents and patent applications were provided to

Nike, Inc. between March and October, 2002 on a non-confidential basis, thus the

information was in effect publicly disclosed on the date(s) they were provided by Lyden

to Nike, Inc. Accordingly, Lyden's patents and patent applications would constitute

relevant prior art regarding later filed patent applications ofNike, Inc. directed to like

subject matter.

77. In December, 2002, Lyden was informed that Nike, Inc. was not interested in

purchasing or licensing his intellectual property.

78. In 2003, Lyden contacted Mr. Chester Kyle of Weed, California, an expert on

the subject of aerodynamic drag and athletic apparel for assistance in editing Chapter 14

entitled "Aerodynamic Drag and Drafting" in Lyden's book in progress, Distance

Running, pages 354-365, Exhibit FF. Kyle helped edit and also provided two photos of

himself conducting experiments in a wind tunnel that were included in Distance Running,

on page 362.

79. Kyle and Mr. Len Brownlie, a graduate student at Simon Fraser University in

Canada, were consultants to Nike, Inc. and had performed experiments on the subject of

aerodynamic apparel in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

80. In 1988, Lyden had designed and caused to be made a racing singlet for use

by Mr. Steven Plasencia during the 1988 U.S. Olympic Trials in Indianapolis, Indiana


because of severe high heat and humidity conditions, as recounted in an article in the St.

Paul Pioneer Press, which is attached hereto as Exhibit DD.

81. Between 1988 - May, 1990, Lyden had shared information and including his

write-up entitled "Aerodynamic Athletic Apparel Background For U.S. Patent

Application And I OR Trademark Protection," dated August 31, 1989, Exhibit D, with

several of his coaching colleagues, but also Kyle, Brownlie, and Nike, Inc. In this regard,

Kyle believed and held that Lyden was the first to suggest the creation of a speedsuit

made of select multiple and different textile materials for producing enhanced

aerodynamic effects, and then pointed to the written description and drawing figures of

Exhibit D, in support.

82. Brownlie's research experiments were funded by Nike, Inc., and his Ph. D.

Thesis on the subject entitled "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Sports Apparel," was later

published in 1992.

83. Lyden did not file for patent protection on the subject of aerodynamic apparel

and so both his own information, and also Brownlie's Ph. D. thesis were placed in the

public domain between 1990-1992.

84. During the course oftheir discussions on the subject of aerodynamic apparel

in 2003, Kyle informed Lyden that Nike, Inc. had filed for a patent regarding the

aerodynamic speedsuit. Knowing that the information was in the public domain, Lyden

asked how could it be possible, and who had been named as inventors? In the abstract,

Lyden considered that Kyle, Brownlie, and himself were possible inventors, but the

question was moot because the information had been placed in the public domain

between 1990-1992. Kyle informed Lyden that someone on the Nike, Inc. campus had


called him and expressed the view that it would be better to have the named inventors be

regular employees working on the campus ofNike, Inc.

85. However, under the patent laws of the United States, it is not possible to

obtain a valid patent without the true inventors being named, or when the subject matter

has already been placed in the public domain. Nevertheless, Nike, Inc. had filed and was

granted U.S. 6,438,755 on August 27,2002 for an "Aerodynamic Garment For Improved

Athletic Performance And Method of Manufacture," attached hereto as Exhibit P, which

was consistent with the prior invention that was shown and discussed in Lyden's written

disclosure on the subject made in August, 1989, Exhibit D, and also the published

articles and works of Kyle and Brownlie which are listed in Distance Running, Exhibit

FF, on page 365.

86. In August, 2003, Lyden completed writing and published his 464 page book

entitled Distance Running, Exhibit FF.

87. As related in Lyden's letter to Nike, Inc.'s in-house patent counsel Mr. James

Niegowski, dated April21, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit Q, Lyden later called and

met with Niegowski on the Nike, Inc. campus in order to discuss the facts and issues

relating to U.S. 6,438,755, Exhibit P. Lyden then provided Niegowski with copies of his

research paper entitled "Aerodynamic Athletic Apparel Background For U.S. Patent

Application And I OR Trademark Protection," dated August 31, 1989, Exhibit D,

Brownlie's Ph. D. thesis published in 1992 entitled, "Aerodynamic Characteristics of

Sports Apparel," and also a copy of Distance Running, Exhibit FF.

88. In view of the aforementioned facts and events, Lyden suggested that Nike,

Inc. take positive steps to place U.S. 6,438,755 for an "Aerodynamic Garment For


Improved Athletic Performance And Method of Manufacture," Exhibit P, in the public

domain. However, Nike, Inc. has instead maintained the patent in force and used it as a

scarecrow in the sporting goods industry.

89. In 2005, Lyden discovered by accident while using the U.S. Patent Office's

on-line patent search system, the existence of several later filed patents and patent

applications ofNike, Inc. including some of the same subject matter as that contained in

Lyden's own prior patents and patent applications which had been offered to Nike, Inc. in

2002.

90. The patents and patent applications ofNike, Inc. which Lyden then discovered

to be in conflict with his previously filed patents included: U.S. patent application serial

number 10/719,668 by Michael Aveni filed November 21, 2003 which later matured as

U.S. 7,100,308 on September 5, 2006, attached hereto as Exhibit N; U.S. patent

application serial number 10/349,398 by Grove et al. filed January 21, 2003 which had

already matured as U.S. 6,915,596 on July 12, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit 0; and

also, a continuation U.S. patent application serial number 11/134,112 by Grove et al. filed

May 19,2005 which later matured as U.S. 7,076,890 on July 18,2006. In this regard,

one can compare and see the resemblance between drawing figures 491-492 of Lyden's

U.S. 7,101,235, Exhibit M, and the drawing figures shown on the title page(s) ofU.S.

7,100,308 by Aveni, Exhibit N, and U.S. 6,915,596 by Grove et al., Exhibit 0.

91. Because of the intellectual property issues and conflicts discussed in the above

paragraphs, Lyden called and met Nike, Inc. in-house patent counsel Mr. James

Niegowski for lunch on December 14,2005.


92. In the course of their conversation, Lyden discussed and showed to Niegowski

relevant figures from Lyden's earlier patents and patent applications that had been

provided and offered to Nike, Inc. in 2002 which clearly showed the same structures and

inventions for which Nike, Inc. had been seeking its own patent protection.

93. Lyden left the meeting with Niegowski on December 14, 2005 with the

impression and belief that Nike, Inc. would take appropriate measures to correct these

outstanding patent issues by taking constructive steps in the U.S. Patent Office.

94. On June 15, 2006, Lyden also provided by e-mail to Niegowski electronic

copies ofhis U.S. 7,016,867, Exhibit L, and U.S. 7,107,235, Exhibit M, in order to

make it easy for Nike, Inc. to search Lyden's patents and conduct due diligence when

filing and prosecuting Nike, Inc.'s own patent applications.

95. On January 17, 2007, Lyden entered into the first phase of an exclusive

license agreement regarding his footwear patents with Dash America, Inc., which does

business as Pearl Izumi, a Colorado corporation which was then owned by a parent

company, Nautilus, Inc., ofVancouver, Washington. However, Nautilus, Inc. suffered

business reverses soon afterwards, and then sold Pearl Izumi to Shimano, Inc. in order to

cover their financial debts. As a result, the second phase of the patent license agreement

with Pearl Izumi which would have entailed the commercialization of footwear product

did not take place, and the "Patent License Agreement," attached hereto as Exhibit R,

was terminated on July 16, 2007.

96. By November, 2007, Lyden discovered using the U.S. Patent Office's search

system that Nike, Inc. had continued to prosecute U.S. patent application serial number

10/719,668 by Michael Aveni, filed November 21, 2003 which matured as U.S.


7,100,308 on September 5, 2006, Exhibit N. Further, Nike, Inc. had failed to direct the

examiner's attention to the most relevant drawing figures, and had also misrepresented

certain facts relating to Lyden's aforementioned patents, Exhibits J- M during the

patent prosecution of U.S. 7,100,308 by Aveni.

97. Further, Lyden observed that Nike, Inc had done nothing about their U.S.

patent application serial number 10/349,398 by Grove et al. filed January 21, 2003 which

had matured as U.S. 6,915,596 on July 12, 2005, Exhibit 0.

98. In addition, Lyden observed that Nike, Inc. had continued to prosecute a

continuation U.S. patent application serial number 11/134,112 by Grove et al. filed May

19,2005 which had matured as U.S. 7,076,890 on July 18,2006.

99. Moreover, Lyden observed that Nike, Inc. had filed a continuation patent

application ofU.S. patent application serial number 111134,112 by Grove et al., namely,

U.S. patent application serial number 11/443,617 on May 30, 2006 which was then

pending.

100. While Nike, Inc. had disclosed some of Lyden's relevant patents to the

Examiner in the information disclosure statements associated with its two now issued

patents to Grove et al. and also a pending U.S. patent application, Nike, Inc. had not

demonstrated complete candor, and then directed the patent examiner's attention to the

most relevant drawing figures therein which Lyden had pointed out and discussed with

Nike, Inc's. in-house patent attorney Niegowski about two years earlier.

101. In an attempt to put a stop to Nike, Inc.'s misconduct in the U.S. Patent

Office, and prevent the issuance of further conflicting and possibly invalid patents, Lyden

filed a first protest under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.291 against Nike, Inc.'s patent application serial


number 11/443,617 on November 15, 2007, attached hereto as ExhibitS, a second

protest on January 9, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit T, and a third protest on June 6,

2008, attached hereto as Exhibit U.

102. However, Nike, Inc. suppressed and did not make all of these protests of

record with the patent examiner in a timely manner, and so U.S. 7,444,763 issued on

November 4, 2008.

103. Nike, Inc. had by then filed another continuation application of U.S. patent

application serial number 111443,617, namely, U.S. patent application serial number

12/207,309 on September 8, 2008.

104. Lyden once again communicated with Nike, Inc. in-house patent attorney

Niegowski, but also with their outside patent counsel Mr. William F. Rauchholz about

U.S. patent application serial number 12/207,309, and as a result the three earlier Lyden

protests were made of record late in the prosecution of the case. The patent examiner

handling the case then substantially narrowed the number and scope of the allowable

claims, and U.S. 7,814,682 was then granted on October 19, 2010.

105. Nike, Inc. filed yet another continuation application of U.S. patent application

serial number 12/207,309, namely, U.S. patent application serial number 12/882,869. In

an office action dated June 4, 2012 the patent examiner rejected the pending claims under

37 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 citing the Lyden patents. As a result, Nike, Inc. abandoned the

patent application as noted by the U.S. Patent Office on January 11, 2013.

106. Nevertheless, as a result ofNike, Inc.'s fraud and inequitable conduct, and

violation of its duty of disclosure during the prosecution of the aforementioned patent

applications by Grove et al., several parent patents had already been granted to Nike, Inc.


which are believed to be invalid. In this regard, a relevant discussion is provided in the

"Excerpt ofMPEP Chapter 2000, Section 2016," attached hereto as Exhibit TT.

107. In 2010, Lyden discovered another chain of conflicting Nike, Inc. patents by

Bhupesh Dua and I or Dua et al., namely, U.S. 6,931,762 filed December 18,2002 and

granted August 23, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit V, U.S. 6,910,288 filed December

18, 2002 and granted January 28, 2005, U.S. 6,986,269 filed December 30, 2004 and

granted January 17, 2006, U.S. 7,131,296 filed January 17, 2006 and granted November

7, 2006, U.S. 7,347,011 filed March 3, 2004 and granted March 25, 2008.

1 08. As a result of this discovery, Lyden then searched of all the Nike, Inc. utility

patents which had been filed after Lyden's own prior disclosures to Nike, Inc. in 2002

and found more conflicting patents.

109. Lyden then prepared a fourteen page letter to Nike, Inc.'s in-house patent

counsel Niegowski dated April21, 2010, Exhibit Q, which indicated over a dozen later

filed conflicting patents ofNike, Inc.

110. On April21, 2010, Lyden met with Niegowski on the Nike, Inc. campus and

hand delivered the letter, Exhibit Q, and also several backup three ring binders including

the conflicting patent applications and patents which had been filed by Nike, Inc. to

Niegowski and then discussed their contents in some detail with him.

111. Upon information and belief, at the time Lyden's letter was delivered to

Niegowski on April21, 2010, there were at least a dozen patent applications which had

been later filed by Nike, Inc. that were in conflict with Lyden's patents and patent

applications which had been previously disclosed to Nike, Inc. in 2002. For a brief

summary regarding the content and tone of Lyden's letter of April21, 2010, Exhibit Q, it


would be beneficial to review page 1, and also the third paragraph on page 13 through the

end of the letter on page 14.

112. Niegowski responded to Lyden's letter of April21, 2010 with an e-mail letter

dated May 19, 2010 indicating that Nike, Inc. had no interest in purchasing or licensing

Lyden's intellectual property, attached hereto as Exhibit W.

113. Lyden questioned and needed to know whether Niegowski had actually

represented the facts and situation to high level executives at Nike, Inc., and so he

responded to Niegowski with the e-mail letter dated May 21, 2010, attached hereto as

Exhibit X.

114. Lyden then sent an e-mail letter to Nike, Inc. CEO Mr. Mark Parker, and also

Nike, Inc. executives Mr. Sandy Bodecker, Mr. Michael Donaghu, and Mr. Tom

McGuirk on May 21, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit Y, which included Lyden's earlier

letter provided to Niegowski dated April 21, 201 0, Exhibit Q, in order to determine if it

was indeed the decision of high level executives at Nike, Inc. to continue to pursue

adverse and harmful actions regarding Lyden's intellectual property rights and business

efforts.

115. Lyden received no response from Nike, Inc.'s CEO Parker, Bodecker,

Donaghu, McGuirk, or Niegowski.

116. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon, the

other athletic footwear industry giant, adidas America, Inc. and its parent company adidas

AG, had infringed upon several of Lyden's apparel and footwear patents.


117. Between 1999 and 2002, Lyden disclosed his issued and pending apparel and

footwear patents to adidas AG, but the company indicated that it had no interest in

Lyden's intellectual property.

118. In 2004, adidas AG began making athletic shorts which infringed upon

Lyden's U.S. 6,243,880. Lyden then contacted adidas AG's legal counsel Mr. Tim

Behean, and the matter was settled within a few months. While negotiating and working

on this settlement with adidas AG, Lyden disclosed his then most recently filed and

issued footwear patents along with the business plan for his start-up company Q Branch,

Inc., but adidas AG indicated that it had no interest in any of Lyden's patents related to

footwear.

119. However, less than a year later, adidas AG starting making the TUNIT soccer

shoe which conflicted and I or infringed upon several of Lyden's footwear patents and

patent applications which had been previously disclosed and offered to adidas AG, e.g.,

the subject matter contained in U.S. 6,601,042, and also the patent applications

corresponding to Lyden's later issued U.S. 7,016,867, and U.S. 7,107,235.

120. Adidas AG had also filed several conflicting patent applications by Wolfgang

Scholz directed to similar subject matter in the U.S. Patent Office that later matured as

U.S. 7,406,781 and U.S. 7,730,637. However, adidas AG had not originally disclosed to

the patent examiner handling these two cases the relevant aforementioned prior art Lyden

patents.

121. In response, Lyden filed three protests against these two adidas AG patent

applications under 37 C.F.R. § 1.291. However, only one of these three protests was

entered by the U.S. Patent Office during the prosecution of these two adidas AG patent


applications. It was then the prerogative of adidas AG to enter the two protests.

However, despite Lyden's suggestion for adidas AG to be candid with the U.S. Patent

Office, the company instead withheld and did not make these two protests of record

during the prosecution of U.S. 7,406,781 and U.S. 7,730,637.

122. Adidas America, Inc. and its parent company adidas AG, commercialized and

sold the TUNIT soccer shoe in the United States between 2005-2010. During this time,

the TUNIT footwear product served as a technology and brand statement product for

adidas AG in association with the World Cup Soccer Championships and the Olympic

Games.

123. In 2010, the adidas AG TUNIT soccer shoe infringed upon four of Lyden's

utility patents, namely, U.S. 6,601,042, Exhibit K, U.S. 7,016,86, Exhibit L, U.S.

7,107,235, Exhibit M, and U.S. 7,752,775, attached hereto as Exhibit GG.

124. In September, 2010, adidas AG's legal counsel Behean became completely

unresponsive to Lyden's efforts to sell or license his relevant footwear patents to adidas

AG.

125. As a result, Lyden filed a complaint for patent infringement against adidas

America, Inc. and adidas AG relating to the TUNIT soccer shoe in United States District

Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division 3:10-CV-1249-BR on October 12, 2010, and

a copy of the third amended complaint is attached hereto, as Exhibit HH.

126. The aforementioned case was later settled out of court by the legal

representatives of adidas AG and Lyden, and was dismissed on October 19, 2011.

However, it has now become clear that adidas AG was already at work on the next

potential patent infringement, but then ... so was Nike, Inc.


127. Aware ofNike, Inc.'s numerous later filed and conflicting patent applications,

Lyden has maintained a priority claim to his earlier parent patent applications. In August

10,2010, Lyden had filed a continuation U.S. patent application serial number

12/803,891 including claims 1-20 directed to footwear structures that were present in

Lyden's parent patent applications which had been provided for review and offered to

Nike, Inc. back in 2002. As discussed above in paragraphs 89-106, Nike, Inc. had later

filed for and claimed similar footwear structures. Nike, Inc. had also suppressed several

of Lyden's protests in the U.S. Patent Office against some ofNike, Inc.'s later filed

patent applications. Accordingly, if an analogy may be made with "cattle rustling,"

Lyden needed to head Nike, Inc. off at the pass. The prosecution and allowance of

claims 1-20 in Lyden's U.S. patent application serial number 12/803,891 would have

clearly established Lyden's ownership of the intellectual property, but before the

application was prosecuted in the U.S. Patent Office, Nike, Inc. did something even more

surpnsmg.

128. On February 21,2012, Nike, Inc. CEO Mr. Mark Parker announced and

presented in New York City the aerodynamic apparel for use by Nike, Inc.'s sponsored

athletes in the upcoming London Olympic Garnes, but also the FL YKNIT Trainer+ shoe

upper, as shown and provided on the following Nike, Inc. website link:

http:/ /nikeinc .com/ summer-of-innovation· news,nike-unvei Is-perfom1ance- innovations

for-summer-of-competition#/inline/804(i

129. Medial and lateral side view photos of the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Trainer+

athletic shoe are provided below:


130. In addition, a superior view photo of the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Trainer+

athletic shoe is provided below:


131. The significance of Nike, Inc.'s commercialization of the FL YKNIT athletic

shoe has been widely discussed and recorded in the media, e.g., see attached hereto as

Exhibit 00: "Nike Flyknit May Reinvent Iconic Nike Swoosh," by Erik Siemers,

Portland Business Journal, March 30, 2012, and attached hereto as Exhibit PP: "Nike's

HTM Collaboration Shows OffFlyknit Potential," by Erik Siemers, Portland Business

Journal, April18, 2012. As discussed in Exhibit PP, the abbreviation HTM stands for

"Hiroshi, Tinker, Mark," and the design of the FL YKNIT shoes is represented as being a

product of the collaboration between "Nike CEO Mark Parker, Nike design legend

Tinker Hatfield, and renowned Japanese designer Hiroshi Fujiwara."

132. However, the key innovative footwear structures associated with the Nike,

Inc. FL YKNIT knitted shoe upper had been previously disclosed by Lyden to Nike, Inc.

in 2002. For example, certain knitted shoe upper structures associated with the Nike, Inc.

FL YKNIT had been disclosed in Lyden's U.S. patent application serial No. 10/279,626

filed on October 24, 2002 which later matured as U.S. 7,107,235, Exhibit M, as shown in

drawing figures 570-575 and discussed in columns 199-201, and in particular, the

attached brief excerpt of U.S. 7,107,235, attached hereto as Exhibit BB.

133. Nike, Inc. was rustling yet another piece of Lyden's intellectual property and

had already taken it to market. Accordingly, Lyden needed to give the FL YKNIT issue

priority and take immediate action in the U.S. Patent Office. In order to protect the

invention which Lyden had previously disclosed to Nike, Inc., Lyden responded to Nike,

Inc.'s CEO Parker's announcement about commercializing the FL YKNIT shoe by adding

claims 21-65 to Lyden's pending U.S. patent application serial number 12/803,891.


During the prosecution of this patent application, claim 20 was then cancelled, and claims

1-19 were withdrawn in favor of prosecuting new claims 21-65. The subject matter

defined in old claims 1-19 will instead be prosecuted in a pending divisional case U.S.

patent application serial number 13/465,021 filed May 6, 2012.

134. U.S. patent application serial number 12/803,891 was then prosecuted, and

U.S. 8,209,883 (" '883 ")by the PlaintiffRobert M. Lyden including allowed claims 1-42

was granted on July 3, 2012, and is attached hereto as Exhibit QQ, and a highly relevant

excerpt is also attached hereto for convenience as Exhibit UU.

135. In addition, Lyden also filed a continuation patent application serial number

13/465,020 on May 6, 2012, which includes pending claims 1-41.

136. As the formal process of discovery has not begun in this case, all of the

possibly infringing Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT athletic shoes which have been commercialized

and sold in the United States may not be known to Lyden. However, upon information

and belief, the following Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT shoes infringe upon Lyden's U.S.

8,209,883: the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Trainer+; the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT LUNAR1 +; and,

the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Chukka.

137. For example, upon information and belief, the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Trainer+

shoe shown above on page 31 directly and indirectly infringes (e.g., by contributory and

inducement) independent Claim 1, and dependent Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-21, 23-32, and

34-40 of the Lyden '883 patent. Claims 9, 15, and 33 are believed by Lyden to not be

presently infringed and so they have been struck out and shown in blue font below, and

without having the results of formal discovery Lyden is uncertain as to whether claims

16, 22, and 29 are being infringed and so these claims have been shown in blue font


herein. For example, the FL YKNIT Trainer+ shoes comprise, as recited in the Lyden

'883 patent:

1. An article of footwear comprising;

an upper comprising a knit textile material element, said upper comprising an

anterior side, a posterior side, a superior side, an inferior side, a medial side,

and a lateral side, an exterior side, and an interior side, said upper comprising

a collar section which extends substantially about an opening defined by said

upper for receiving a wearer's foot, a dorsal section comprising a dorsal pad

extending on said superior side of said upper above the position of the instep

of said wearer's foot, a vamp section extending substantially on said superior

side of said upper over the position of a plurality of the phalanges of said

wearer's foot, a quarter section further comprising a medial quarter and a

lateral quarter, said medial quarter extending on said medial side of said upper

along a junction between said upper with said sole to said collar section and

said dorsal section, and said lateral quarter extending on said lateral side of

said upper along a junction between said upper with said sole to said collar

section and said dorsal section, a tip section extending on said anterior side of

said upper proximate to the position of the distal end of a plurality of the toes

of said wearer's foot and also about a portion of said medial side and said

lateral side of said upper along a junction between said upper and said sole,

and a posterior section on said posterior side of said upper and extending

about a portion of said medial side and said lateral side substantially about the


position of the heel of said wearer's foot, said posterior section extending

upwards on said posterior side to said collar section, wherein each of the

dorsal, collar, vamp, quarter, and tip sections of said upper comprises a

different knit textile material structure having different elongation

characteristics.

2. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein each of said upper

sections comprise different mechanical properties.

3. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein each of said upper

sections comprise different physical properties.

4. The article offootwear according to claim 1, wherein each of said upper

sections comprise different knit textile materials.

5. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said knit textile material

element forms substantially all ofthe exterior side of said upper.


element forms a majority of the exterior side of said upper.

7. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said collar section

comprises a knit textile material having resilient elastic properties, said dorsal

section comprises a knit textile material comprising a dorsal pad, said vamp

section comprises a 4-way stretchable knit textile material, said quarter

section comprises at least a 2-way stretchable knit textile material, said tip

section comprises a knit textile material having greater resistance to

elongation relative to said vamp section, and said posterior section also

comprises a knit textile material having greater resistance to elongation

relative to said vamp section.


8. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a tongue.

9. The article of footwear according to claim 1. \vherein said upper is tongueless.

1 0. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a shoe lace

functionally coupled to said upper.

11. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a strap

functionally coupled to said upper.

12. The article of footwear according to claim 11, said strap comprising a closed

loop on said posterior side.

13. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising an insole.

14. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a sole

coupled with said upper.

15. The article of footwear according to claim 14. wherein said sole is removabl:•

coupled ·.vith said upper.

16. The article of footwear according to claim 1. t'tmher comprising a plastic

material coupled to said knit textile material of said upper.

1 7. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a backtab on

said posterior side.

18. The article of footwear according to claim 1, said upper further comprising

edges, said edges being joined to comprise a seam extending longitudinally on

said inferior side of said upper.


19. The article of footwear according to claim 1, said upper further comprising

edges, said edges being joined to comprise a seam extending vertically on said

posterior side of said upper.

20. The article of footwear according to claim 1, said knit textile element

comprising a circular knitted textile material.

21. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said upper comprises a

sock-like structure.

22. The article of footwear according to claim I. wherein said upper comprises a

biodegradable knit textile material.

23. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein at least one additional

element is secured to and forms a portion of said exterior side of said upper.

24. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said collar section

comprises a resilient elastic textile material and said vamp section comprises

at least one 4-way stretchable knit textile material.

25. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said quarter section

comprises at least one 2-way stretchable knit textile material.


element forms at least a portion of said superior side, said lateral side, said

medial side, said anterior side, and said posterior side of said upper.

27. The article of footwear according to claim 3, wherein said different physical

properties comprise the relative stretchability of said upper sections.


28. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein the different sections of

said knit textile material element incorporate different textile materials.

29. The article of footwear according to claim 1. wherein said knit textile material

element incorporates a single type of textile material having a plurality of knit

constructions.

30. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein the knit textile material

incorporated in said tip section of said upper on said anterior side and also

extending to at least a portion of said medial side and said lateral side along a

junction between said upper and said sole comprises greater resistance to

elongation relative to the knit textile material incorporated in said collar

section.

31. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein the knit textile material

incorporated in said anterior section of said upper on said anterior side and

also extending to at least a portion of said medial side and said lateral side

along a junction between said upper and said sole has greater resistance to

elongation relative to the knit textile material incorporated in said vamp

section.


incorporated in the posterior section of said upper on said posterior side and

also extending to at least a portion of said medial side and said lateral side

along a junction between said upper and said sole has greater resistance to

elongation relative to the knit textile material incorporated in said collar

section.

;.3. The article of footv.ear accord in~ w claim l, said upper comprising at least a

"'v.uy ~;tretchable knit textile matt?rial on at least a portion of said inferior :;ide


extending betv.een ~;aid medial ~;ide and ~;aid lateral ~•ide. wherein the length of

•aid upper can be elongated by at least one half size.

34. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a longitudinal

opening on said superior side of said upper in said dorsal section for

accommodating the entry of a wearer's foot, a tongue, and a plurality of small

annular shaped openings on each of said medial side and said lateral side of

said upper for receiving a lace, and the knit textile material included in the

area proximate to said longitudinal opening including said plurality of small

annular openings for receiving a lace comprises greater resistance to

elongation relative to the knit textile material included in said vamp section.

35. The article of footwear according to claim 1, further comprising a dorsal pad

comprising a tongue.

36. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said upper comprises a

sock-like structure.

3 7. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein said knit textile material

element comprises a three dimensional knit textile material.


element further comprises a woven textile material.


element extends on at least said anterior side, said medial side, said lateral

side, and said superior side.

40. The article of footwear according to claim 1, wherein the different sections of

said knit textile element are coupled with one another.


138. Nike, Inc. also directly and indirectly infringes (e.g., by contributory and

inducement) independent Claim 41 of the Lyden '883 patent. For example, the Nike, Inc.

FL YKNIT Trainer+ shoes comprise, as recited in Claim 41 of the Lyden '883 patent:

41. An article of footwear comprising an upper, said upper comprising an anterior

side, a posterior side, a superior side, an inferior side, a medial side, and a

lateral side, an exterior side, and an interior side, said upper comprising a

collar section, a dorsal section, a vamp section, a quarter section, a tip section,

and a posterior section, said upper comprising a circular knitted textile

material element having a plurality of knitted constructions, at least the collar,

dorsal, vamp, quarter, and tip sections of said upper comprising different

knitted constructions and being coupled with one another and the different

knitted constructions of said sections of said upper comprise different

structures having different mechanical properties.

139. Nike, Inc. also directly and indirectly infringes (e.g., by contributory and

inducement) independent Claim 42 of the Lyden '883 patent. For example, the Nike, Inc.

FL YKNIT Trainer+ shoes comprise, as recited in Claim 42 of the Lyden '883 patent:

42. An article of footwear comprising: a sole for providing a ground-contacting

surface, and an upper for receiving a foot of a wearer, said upper being

coupled with said sole and having a plurality of different sections each of said

different sections comprising a knitted textile material comprising different

structure, said plurality of different sections comprising a tip section, a vamp


section, a dorsal section, a collar section, at least one quarter section, and a

posterior section, at least the tip, vamp, dorsal, collar, and quarter sections of

said upper comprising knitted textile materials having different mechanical

properties.

140. Given that Nik:e, Inc. apparently intended to commercialize the FL YKNIT

Trainer+ shoe without purchasing or licensing Lyden's patents, Lyden decided to instead

contact adidas AG's outside patent counsel Geoff Gavin and also adidas AG's outside

trademark counsel Stephen Feldman whom Lyden had met in connection with the "Lyden

vs. adidas AG, et al." patent suit 3: 1 0-CV -1249-BR, Exhibit HH, which had been settled

in 2011.

141. However, what Lyden did not and could not know was that adidas AG had

been preparing a competitive "knock off' response to the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT Trainer+

shoe, and later introduced the so-called PRIMEKNIT shoe in June, 2012, as disclosed in

the article entitled: "It's a Seamless Revolution: Adidas Follows Nike Flyknit with

Primeknit" by Eric Siemers, Portland Business Journal, July 26, 2012, attached hereto as

Exhibit II. In contrast with the "first-of-its-kind running shoe" misrepresentation found

in the adidas AG press statement which is quoted in Exhibit II, adidas AG had prior

knowledge and possession of Lyden's relevant patent information relating to knitted shoe

uppers which had been filed with the U.S. Patent Office on October 24, 2002. For

example, Lyden's pending patent application corresponding to U.S. 7,107,235 had been

made known to adidas AG's legal counsel Behean at least as early as 2004. Further, Mr.

Mikal Peveto, a former employee ofNike, Inc. and adidas AG, who was slated to be the

CEO of Lyden's own start-up company, had pitched Lyden's relevant intellectual


property to executives at adidas AG in 2008, as shown on pages 11-12 of the attached

"Lyden vs. adidas AG et al." complaint filed in 2010, Exhibit HH. The knitted shoe

upper was a key component in Lyden's plan to make customizable shoes on demand, and

bring footwear manufacturing back to the United States. Adidas AG then hired Peveto to

become the Director of Running for adidas America, Inc., and he still holds the position

today.

142. Lyden was aware ofNike, Inc.'s later filed patents directed to the subject of

knitted shoe uppers, and so Lyden attempted to warn adidas AG about their existence.

Lyden also predicted that Nike, Inc. would take legal action for patent infringement

against adidas AG. Given the fact that adidas AG does not have any pending or issued

patents relating to their own PRIMEKNIT competitive response to Nike, Inc.'s

FL YKNIT athletic shoe, Lyden felt that it could be in the mutual interest of adidas AG

and Lyden to enter into a business relationship. Accordingly, Lyden offered to sell or

license his relevant footwear patents to adidas AG in May, 2012.

143. Apparently being unwilling to enter into a business agreement, and afraid of

the possibility that Lyden might sue adidas AG over the PRIMEKNIT shoe, which is

something Lyden had not threatened to do, adidas AG then responded by filing on

August 21,2012 in the U.S. Patent Office and sending Lyden by U.S. mail a copy of a

request for a reexamination of his U.S. 8,209,883. So there is Lyden's answer from

adidas AG as if to say: "Let no good deed go unpunished."

144. The reexamination is now in progress under the old rules and process and can

be viewed using the U.S. Patent Office PAIR system by searching for patent control/

serial number 95/002,094. There has already been a first office action by the patent


Examiner, and a response. Lyden has not amended any of the issued claims of U.S.

8,209,883 due to arguments based upon the recited prior art references. In fact, Lyden

has provided evidence to the U.S. Patent Office that adidas AG has committed fraud in

bringing, and also in prosecuting the reexamination, as shown in Exhibit JJ, which is

attached hereto.

145. Moreover, as Lyden had predicted and warned, Nike, Inc. has now filed a

patent lawsuit against adidas AG over the PRIMEKNIT shoe and was granted a

preliminary injunction by a German court on September 24, 2012.

146. In response, adidas AG has filed a reexamination ofNike, Inc.'s U.S.

7,347,011 by Dua et al. in addition to the present reexamination of Lyden's U.S.

8,209,883. The reexamination ofNike, Inc.'s U.S. 7,347,011 is being conducted under

the new rules and process and can be viewed by following the provided link below, and

searching by the patent number alone, that is, 734 7011.

https://ptabtrials.uspto.go\ 1prweb/PR Web! J)AP2; Hcl5xOSeX yQR YZAnTXXCg%5B

%58*/!STANDARD?Userldentitier=searchuser

147. If and when the adidas AG PRIMEKNIT shoe goes on sale in Portland,

Oregon, something which was expected to happen soon, but it may not now due in part to

Nike, Inc.'s patent lawsuit with adidas AG, it would be the third possible infringement of

one or more of Lyden's patents by adidas AG over the past nine years.

148. The Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT athletic shoes were provided to many athletes in a

bright yellowish color, and received considerable media exposure during the 2012

London Olympic Games. The knitting machines required for making such knitted uppers


cost at least 50K each, and so both Nike, Inc. and adidas AG are making a substantial

capital investment in making such new knitted footwear uppers.

149. Whereas Nike, Inc. has been granted several later filed patents on the subject

of knitted shoe uppers, adidas AG was late to get started, and has no issued patents

relating to knitted uppers, and no pending applications, if such exist, have yet to be

published. In brief, having lost the race in both the research and development and legal

departments, and with it the possibly of obtaining its own intellectual property having

broad scope for making and selling knitted shoe uppers, adidas AG, upon information

and belief, has sought to change this undesired competitive outcome by misusing the U.S.

Patent Office.

150. However, Nike, Inc. has not shown the relevant rules and governing laws

relating to intellectual property, and the patent examiners working in the U.S. Patent

Office much respect either. Nike, Inc. had been informed by Lyden that the company's

later filed Dua and Dua et al. patent(s), e.g., Exhibit V, were in conflict with Lyden's

prior patent application disclosures to Nike, Inc. when Lyden discussed and provided his

letter dated April 21, 2010 to Nike, Inc.'s in-house patent counsel Niegowski, which is

attached hereto as Exhibit Q.

151. Nike, Inc. has filed a preliminary response in the present reexamination case

ofNike, Inc.'s U.S. 7,347,011 by Dua et al., which is attached hereto as Exhibit KK.

What Nike, Inc.'s response does not say is that Nike, Inc. was in possession of Lyden's

previously filed patent applications including: provisional patent application serial

number 60/345,951 filed December 29, 2001 which included drawing figures 1-360;

provisional patent application serial number 60/360,784 filed March 1, 2002 including


drawing figures 1-500; non-provisional patent application serial number 10/152,402 filed

May 21, 2002 which later matured as U.S. 7,016,867 and included drawing figures 1-523;

and non-provisional patent application 10/279,626 filed October 24, 2002 which later

matured as U.S. 7,107,235 and included drawing figures 1-575, at least one year and

closer to two years before the company filed for Nike, Inc.'s U.S. 7,347,011 by Dua et al.

which is also directed to the subject matter of knitted uppers. Again, the Lyden patent

disclosures to Nike, Inc. in 2002 were made on a non-confidential basis. Accordingly,

Lyden's patent information was in effect published and would constitute relevant prior art

to any later filed Nike patent application(s) which would possibly be directed to the same

subject matter. However, Nike, Inc. did not make any of the previously filed Lyden

patents applications of record during the prosecution ofNike, Inc.'s U.S. 7,347,011 by

Dua et al., nor has Nike, Inc. done so in its now pending reexamination.

152. After Lyden took the steps in the U.S. Patent Office described above in

paragraphs 133-135 in order to protect his inventions, Lyden searched the U.S. Patent

Office website www.uspto.gov for the most recent Nike, Inc. utility patents which had

issued or been published since the time of Lyden's earlier meeting and discussion with

Niegowski at Nike, Inc. on April, 21, 2010.

153. As a result, Lyden discovered even more conflicting patents which have been

filed by Nike, Inc. In this regard, a 15 page document entitled "Problematic Nike, Inc.

Patents" having a section entitled "Conflicting Nike, Inc. Patents" which indicates over

twenty conflicting patents that were filed by Nike, Inc. after Lyden provided Nike, Inc.

with copies of Lyden's prior patent applications in 2002 is attached hereto, as Exhibit

LL. Upon information and belief, Nike, Inc. has continued to obtain intellectual


property rights by making fraudulent representations with regards to inventorship and/or

violating Nike, Inc.'s duty of disclosure and withholding relevant prior art information

from patent examiners in the U.S. Patent Office. Insofar as Nike, Inc.'s actions can be

shown to be knowing and willful, Lyden believes that Nike, Inc.'s actions comprise

intentional interference with Lyden's prospective economic advantage, fraud, and

conversion under the common law. Alternatively, insofar as Nike, Inc may wish to claim

the various acts of commission and repeated acts of omission recited, e.g., in Exhibit Q,

and also Exhibit LL, have been due to human error and/or a bad case of collective

corporate amnesia and forgetfulness, Lyden believes that Nike, Inc.'s behavior

nevertheless comprises negligent interference with Lyden's prospective economic

advantage under the common law.

154. Again, Nike, Inc. has reviewed and considered, but declined to purchase or

license Lyden's relevant footwear patents between March, 2002- present. Instead, Nike,

Inc. has later filed for numerous conflicting patent applications which have matured into

U.S. patents, but some ofthese are believed to be invalid due to numerous acts of fraud

and inequitable conduct, and violation ofNike, Inc.'s duty of disclosure in the U.S.

Patent Office. In this regard, Nike, Inc. is entitled to file for improvement patents over

the inventions of Lyden and other inventors, but Nike, Inc. is not entitled to: name false

inventors; omit inventors; falsify the facts and date of the invention; by either overt act or

acts of omission to hide or suppress relevant prior art information and violate the duty of

disclosure; and I or, knowingly claim matter having broader scope than the possible

improvement to which Nike, Inc. may be justly entitled. In this regard, Lyden believes


that it would be improper and unjust for Nike, Inc. to retain any value obtained as a result

ofNike, Inc.'s wrongful conduct.

155. To make an analogy with cattle rustling, Lyden's intellectual property has

sometimes been misappropriated and then repackaged into later filed patent applications

by Nike, Inc. The company has then kept numerous patent examiners in the U.S. Patent

Office in the dark about both the origins of the subject matter and also the most relevant

prior art concerning Nike, Inc.'s later filed patent applications in order to cause by such

acts of fraud, inequitable conduct, violation of the duty of disclosure, and conversion, the

U.S. Patent Office to improperly grant and essentially re-brand Lyden's inventions and

intellectual property with the Swoosh brand and trademark ofNike, Inc.

156. The actions ofNike, Inc. and also adidas AG in filing and prosecuting

numerous conflicting patents after being provided with copies of Lyden's previously filed

patents and patent applications between 2002-2008, and commercialization of the "IT"

shoes including the adidas AG TUNIT, Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT, and adidas AG

PRIMEKNIT, has harmed Lyden's ability to secure investors for a small business start

up, or alternatively, to license or sell his intellectual property to other parties in the

sporting goods industry.

157. Lyden has offered to sell or license his intellectual property to Nike, Inc.

numerous times between 2002- present. Lyden's efforts to obtain investors for his

business start-up Q Branch, Inc. were also known to Nike, Inc. and the general public,

e.g., see the article entitled "If The Shoe Fits," by Brian Fitzpatrick which appeared in the

Portland, Oregon Willamette Week newspaper in November, 2004, attached hereto as

Exhibit MM. Moreover, Lyden has had numerous conversations and written


communications with Nike, Inc.'s in-house patent counsel Niegowski about Nike, Inc.'s

various conflicting patents, and his own patent portfolio which includes U.S. 8,209,883,

Exhibit QQ. However, Lyden's repeated good faith efforts to resolve the outstanding

patent issues described in the present complaint have been unsuccessful, and Nike, Inc.

has become completely non-responsive.


Nike, Inc.'s Improper Promotions and Marketing Efforts



159. Due to the fact that Lyden is an inventor and business person in the sporting

goods industry, and also because of his knowledge of sport and experience as a coach,

Lyden is aware of two persistent streams of improper Nike, Inc. conduct which are

harmful to Lyden's present and future business efforts, but also that of others. Nike,

Inc.'s improper actions regarding Lyden's intellectual property have been discussed in

some detail in the present complaint in paragraphs 8-157 above. Accordingly, the

following paragraphs 160-182 will focus on certain harmful and unfair business practices

ofNike, Inc. which pertain to improper athlete promotion and marketing efforts.

160. Upon information and belief, some of the athlete promotions, advertising,

marketing and sales efforts ofNike, Inc. have been improper and associated with fraud

because they have been aided by the provision of performance enhancing drugs, or like

substances, to some ofNike, Inc.'s elite sponsored athletes, in order to win public

goodwill and market share by making fraudulent representations of legitimate athletic


success, and gain an unfair competitive advantage over Nike, Inc.'s business rivals in the

sporting goods industry.

161. As discussed in paragraphs 48-62 above, Lyden had opposed Mr. Alberto

Salazar's actions in seeking out and providing performance enhancing substances to

Nike, Inc. promotional athletes in 1997. However, this was not the first time that Lyden

had confronted such activity at Nike, Inc. There is a history of individuals employed by

Nike, Inc. supporting the use of performance enhancing drugs by Nike, Inc.'s sponsored

athletes going back to at least the early 1980's. In this regard, Lyden had previously

discovered, and attempted to stop such activity by Mr. Dick Brown at Nike, Inc.'s club

Athletics West in 1983. In this regard, Lyden reported the problem to Nike, Inc. co

founder and retired University of Oregon Coach Bill Bowerman.

162. However, Lyden's best efforts to get Nike, Inc. to effectively deal with the

issue of performance enhancing drugs, or like substances in sport were not successful in

1983, or 1997. Further, Lyden had received threats by Dr. Morris Mann during a phone

conversation in 1997. Lyden was then advised to keep a record of his information and

experiences. Accordingly, Lyden then began to write a living document entitled "Nike,

Drugs and Sport," which provides a historical and narrative account relating to Nike,

Inc.'s behavior on this subject.

163. In 2005, University of Oregon Track & Field Head Coach Martin Smith was

effectively forced out, and resigned due in large part to political pressure which had been

brought by Salazar and Nike, Inc. In this regard, Salazar has a building named after him

on the Nike, Inc. campus in Beaverton, Oregon, and he has been responsible and/or

enjoyed considerable power and influence over the selection of distance runners who


have been provided with promotional contracts. At the same time, Salazar has also

coached some ofNike, Inc.'s highest profile and elite athletes including, Mr. Mo Farah,

and also Mr. Galen Rupp.

164. Smith coached at the University of Oregon between 1998-2005 and the

athletic program then improved and was successful. In 2005, Smith was hired by the

University of Oklahoma which then had struggling Track & Field and Cross-Country

programs, but no more.

165. At the time of Smith's departure, some individuals in the Oregon track

community who were aware of Salazar's history and activity relating to performance

enhancing drugs or like substances feared that Salazar would seek and obtain a coaching

position at the University of Oregon. In brief, they did not want to see drugs or like

substances being pushed on student-athletes at the University of Oregon. In this regard,

an individual in the Oregon track community called Lyden for possible support. Lyden

shared this individual's concerns, and so gave his current copy of"Nike, Drugs, and

Sport" to the individual who was planning to communicate with an administrator at the

University of Oregon. Being "old school," Lyden felt that Salazar ought to have the

opportunity to discuss the contents with the author of the document being present face to

face in the same room, and so he volunteered to make himself available for such a

meeting with Salazar and members of the University of Oregon administration.

However, no one ever called Lyden. Vin Lananna was later recruited from Stanford

University and hired as the next Head Track & Field Coach at the University of Oregon,

and he proved to be extremely successful.


166. Unfortunately, nothing has really stopped the efforts ofNike, Inc. to provide

information and performance enhancing drugs, or like substances, and related services to

their promotional athletes. Make no mistake, not all athletes and coaches who have been

sponsored or associated with Nike, Inc. have participated in this improper activity.

However, many elite athletes have been approached over the years, and some have made

decisions with adverse consequences. In this regard, Salazar has been in a power position

and been responsible or had influence over the selection of distance runners who have

been provided with promotional contracts, and at the same time he has also been in the

position of overseeing or coaching some of these high profile athletes. Accordingly, the

temptation to take performance enhancing drugs or like substances has been combined

with Nike, Inc.'s financial leverage as concerns the ability of an athlete to get a

promotional contract, and also certain training related suggestions or imperatives as

defined by Coach Salazar. While not legal minors, many recruited distance runners have

been young college graduates in their early twenties. However, Mr. Galen Rupp was a

minor when Salazar began coaching him, and Mrs. Mary Decker Slaney was also a minor

when she first became a Nike, Inc. promotional athlete in the 1970's.

167. In the 1980's, Mr. Dick Brown, an administrator at Nike, Inc.'s club Athletics

West facility in Eugene, Oregon was monitoring and supporting the use of performance

enhancing steroid drugs with Nike, Inc. promotional athletes. However, Brown's activity

was confronted by Lyden, Mr. Robert Sevene, and Mr. Jeff Johnson. In response, Brown

moved out of the club Athletics West building, and took a lower profile.


168. On June 2, 1986, a Nike, Inc. sponsored athlete named Mr. Jeff Drenth, died

of unknown causes at the Athletics West location, and Nike, Inc., then closed the facility

down on July 11, 1986.

169. Nevertheless, in the mid-1990's, Salazar recruited Mr. Morris Mann, a doctor

having a revoked medical license in the State of California to assist Decker Slaney and

other promotional athletes ofNike, Inc. Decker Slaney had a positive test result after a

competition in 1996. Mann's activity was then investigated by Lyden who provided the

information to Nike, Inc.'s legal department.

170. Salazar has in more recent years engaged Dr. Jeffrey Brown of Houston,

Texas, and Nike, Inc. has been paying for his services, as discussed in the recent Wall

Street Journal article published on April 10, 2013, entitled "U.S. Track's Unconventional

Physician Dr. Brown Treats Runners For A Disorder Not Known to Afflict Them. His

Patients' Medal Count: 15 Olympic Golds," by Sara Germano and Kevin Clark, Wall

Street Journal, April 10, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit SS.

171. Accordingly, Nike, Inc's activity in seeking and obtaining the services of

various individuals for the purpose of enhancing the performance ofNike, Inc.'s

sponsored athletes spans at least three decades.

172. Lyden's repeated efforts to bring an end to the improper activity by attempting

to work with persons inside Nike, Inc. were not successful in 1983 or 1997.

1 73. Given that Nike, Inc. had supported legal actions against the USOC and

IAAF, Lyden came to believe that someone in an appropriate role and position of

authority regarding the governance of sport and also law enforcement should have

knowledge of the relevant information in his possession. Accordingly, Lyden shared the


information in his possession with several persons associated with the governance of

sport and law enforcement between 1997-201 0.

174. Lyden believed that would probably be the end of his involvement, but the

issue ofNike, Inc., and performance enhancing drugs and sport later resurfaced in

August, 2012.

175. The 2012 Olympic Games in London took place between July 27, 2012 and

August 12, 2012. Lyden saw a report on the evening news about Mo Farah and Galen

Rupp, who were coached by Salazar, winning Gold and Silver Medals in the 10,000

meters event on August 4, 2012.

176. Nike, Inc. enjoyed favorable public exposure with their infringing FL YKNIT

athletic shoe, and adidas AG had also countered with the launch of their PRIMEKNIT

athletic shoe during the 2012 Olympic Games, and these developments were of concern

to Lyden.

177. After the conclusion of the Olympic Games in 2012, Lyden received a call

from one of his brothers. Lyden's brother had received a call from an individual about a

phone conversation which had recently taken place with Salazar, and wished to warn

Lyden about the substance of Salazar's call.

178. Lyden was informed that after Mr. Mo Farah and Mr. Galen Rupp had

achieved success with their 1-2 finish in the Olympic 10,000 meters event, Salazar had

received questions and calls from foreign news reporters who questioned Salazar about

the possible means which had been used to obtain the results. Lyden was also informed

that Salazar had communicated his belief that Lyden was responsible for the skeptical

reception that he had received by some members of the foreign press and media.


However, Lyden doesn't know any members of the foreign press. Lyden was informed

that one of the questions posed to Salazar by reporters had to do with gene splicing or

manipulation. Lyden was informed that Salazar had accused Lyden of"blogging" and

saying negative things about him out on the Internet. Lyden has heard of"blogging," but

he doesn't know how to do it. Lyden was informed that Salazar had communicated a

threat and said that he had contacted a lawyer and was considering suing Lyden for libel.

Lyden is aware that Mr. Lance Armstrong had made the same kind of threats to Mr. Greg

LeMond, and also that Salazar had worked with Armstrong concerning his efforts to

compete in the triathlon event and run a marathon in recent years. Lyden was then

informed that Salazar had said something even stranger and darker: Salazar had asked

whether he (Salazar) and his family were safe from Lyden?

179. Between 1983- present, Lyden's intent has been to make Nike, Inc. aware of

certain facts and issues relating to the use of performance enhancing drugs and like

substances, and help Nike, Inc. effectively address the problem. In response, at least one

individual associated with Nike, Inc. has perceived and treated Lyden as a threat.

However, Lyden's objective has been to correct behavior that is not only harmful to

others, but also to Nike, Inc.

180. Other companies in the sporting goods industry, e.g., adidas AG, Puma SE,

New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., and ASICS, as well as Lyden's own "Q Branch, Inc."

have been engaged in competition with Nike, Inc. Some of the different areas of business

competition include public goodwill for their brand(s), the perceived added value of their

products which are due to innovation and a certain exclusivity which can be provided by


intellectual property rights, and also the effectiveness of promotions, marketing, and

advertising efforts which seek to attract customers and increase market share and sales.

181. The actions ofNike, Inc. relating to the provision of performance enhancing

drugs or like substances, and related medical services to their promotional athletes may

be of concern to agencies or organizations such as USATF, IAAF, USOC, FDA, and

USADA for issues which relate to their applicable competition rules and other laws of the

United States.

182. However, in the context ofthe competitive business environment and public

marketplace in the United States, Lyden believes that the actions ofNike, Inc. relating to

helping Nike, Inc.'s promotional athletes to cheat, and the making of false representations

as to the legitimacy of such tainted athletic performances in order to fraudulently enhance

Nike, Inc.'s brand image and take away sales from other competitors and instead claim

them for Nike, Inc., constitutes a form of unfair competition and a shamelessly unfair

business practice, but also a deceptive business practice (the exhibited athletic

performance being the result of cheating and not the quality of shoes, apparel, or the

athlete's character traits), and fraud on the general public.


The Public Interest Has Been Harmed




184. Portland, Oregon is the world headquarters ofNike, Inc., and also the U.S.

headquarters of adidas AG. Nike, Inc. and adidas AG together enjoy about sixty percent

of the market share in athletic footwear sales worldwide.

185. Lyden worked independently to create a valuable intellectual property

portfolio relating to the footwear industry between 1998 - 2013.

186. adidas AG commercialized the TUNIT soccer shoe which infringed several of

Lyden's patents, and then made it their primary technology and brand statement in the

soccer product category between 2005-2010, and the company may also soon be

importing the PRIMEKNIT athletic shoe.

187. Nike, Inc. made the FL YKNIT athletic shoe their primary technology and

brand statement footwear product during the 2012 London Olympic Games. Further,

Nike, Inc. is presently selling FL YKNIT athletic shoes in the State of Oregon, and

elsewhere in the United States, which are believed to be infringing upon Lyden's U.S.

8,209,883, Exhibit QQ. Nike, Inc. has announced plans to expand the scope of

FL YKNIT product offerings in the future. Moreover, upon information and belief, Nike,

Inc. has filed numerous conflicting patent applications and improperly obtained certain

patent rights by fraud and inequitable conduct, and violation of the duty of disclosure in

the U.S. Patent Office, and thereby converted the intellectual property for which Lyden

has a rightful claim or ownership.

188. Lyden was granted an MA degree in Public Administration from the Hubert

H. Humphrey Institute at the University ofMinnesota in 1988, and recognizes that he is

not the first, nor that he will be the last inventor to have negative experiences with large

companies which may be ethically challenged. If an inventor can't protect and defend his


intellectual property, and his or her efforts to start of small business are quashed by the

predatory actions of two large companies which together enjoy an oligopoly and about

sixty percent of the market share in an industry, then the prospects are certainly not good

for successful innovation and business growth in the United States. Accordingly, Lyden

seeks a judgment against Nike, Inc. which may possibly serve to establish a legal

precedent and more perfect outcome for inventors and small businesses which would be

in the public interest now, and in the future.

189. Portland, Oregon has the potential to become a hub for the sporting goods

industry just as it has become a hub for the electronics industry, that is, our so-called

"Silicone Forest." Most of the job creation in American is the result of the creation and

growth of small businesses. In order to compete with large and established companies

having greater human, material and fmancial resources it is imperative for most small

business start-ups to obtain and be able to protect their intellectual property as discussed

in "Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus," by the Economics

and Statistics Administration and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, March, 2012,

attached hereto as Exhibit NN.

190. However, Nike, Inc. is believed to have willfully committed numerous acts of

fraud and inequitable conduct, and violated the duty of disclosure in the U.S. Patent

Office, in order to convert Lyden's intellectual property for the benefit ofNike, Inc.

Simultaneously, Nike, Inc. has harmed Lyden's ability to license or sell his intellectual

property, and/or secure investors for a small business start-up. Further, Nike, Inc. has

and continues to sell FL YKNIT shoes which infringe upon Lyden's U.S. 8,209,883.

Whereas Lyden wished to bring footwear manufacturing back to the United States and


make custom footwear upon demand using certain novel features of his inventions and

business model, Nike, Inc. is believed to have converted and infringed Lyden's

intellectual property and instead continues to make the bulk ofNike, Inc.'s footwear

products in the Far East.

191. Nike, Inc.'s numerous and repeated improper actions with regards to Lyden's

intellectual property, and improper athlete promotions and marketing efforts which have

been aided by the provision of performance enhancing drugs and like substances to some

ofNike, Inc.'s elite sponsored athletes in order to gain unfair advantage over Nike, Inc.'s

business rivals in the sporting goods industry, both provide evidence of a pattern of

fraudulent and unfair business practices which have and will continue to thwart free and

fair competition in the marketplace.

192. In light of the facts and history of events, the improper and wrongful actions

ofNike, Inc. have been intentional, willful, and predatory in nature, and the clear aim,

intent, and effect ofNike, Inc.'s actions have and continue to be those of an intellectual

property rustler, and small business "start-up killer."

193. The general public has and will continue to be harmed unless Nike, Inc. is

compelled by the Court to desist from predatory actions directed against inventors and

small businesses in the future. Lyden believes that Nike, Inc.'s unlawful actions need to

be stopped, and that Nike, Inc. should be required to make just restitution.

194. Accordingly, Lyden asks the Court to provide the relief which is respectfully

requested within the following Claims and Prayer for Relief.


FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Patent Infringement



196. Lyden is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,209,883 ("the '883 patent")

entitled "Custom Article of Footwear and Method of Making the Same" which issued on

July 3, 2012.

197. Since its issuance on July 3, 2012, Defendant Nike, Inc. has been and now is

directly infringing the '883 patent in Oregon, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the

United States by, among other things, manufacturing, using, selling, importing and /or

offering for sale footwear that infringe one or more claims of the '883 patent, to the

injury of Lyden. Exemplar infringing articles of the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT shoes being

manufactured, sold and /or offered for sale are shown in Exhibit RR.

198. Nike, Inc. has been and is actively inducing infringement and has contributed

to infringement of the Lyden '883 patent by retailers, customers, sponsored teams,

promotional athletes, and sales personnel by their making, using, selling, and offering for

sale FL YKNIT shoes. Nike, Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the '883 patent

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

199. Upon information and belief, the Nike, Inc. FL YKNIT shoes directly and

indirectly infringe (e.g., by contributory and inducement) at least independent Claims 1,

41, and 42, and dependent Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-21, 23-32, and 34-40 of the Lyden '883

patent.


200. At least after Nike, Inc. has had actual notice of the '883 patent and over

Lyden's continued objections, Nike, Inc. has willfully infringed, and knowingly induced

infringing acts with the specific intent to induce another's infringement. Nike, Inc.

continues to willfully infringe the '883 patent without justification.

201. Nike Inc.'s infringement has damaged or impaired the value of the '883

patent.

202. As a result of the Nike, Inc.'s infringement of the '883 patent, Lyden has

suffered monetary damages that are compensable under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount not

yet determined but believed to be in excess of 15 million dollars ($15,000,000.00), and

Lyden will continue to suffer such monetary damages in the future unless Nike Inc.'s

infringing activities are permanently enjoined by this Court.

203. Unless permanent injunctions are issued enjoining Nike, Inc. and its agents,

servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on its behalf from

infringing the '883 patent, Lyden will be greatly and irreparably harmed.

204. This case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of35 U.S.C.

§ 285 and Lyden is thus entitled to an award of his reasonable attorneys' fees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage




206. Lyden has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic

relationships with current and prospective investors, purchasers, and/or licensees of

Lyden's footwear patents.

207. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the

form of the ability to attract investors and launch a profitable new company, and/or

alternatively, to enter into profitable intellectual property purchase or license agreements

relating to Lyden's footwear patents.

208. Had Nike, Inc. refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct

described in this complaint, there is a substantial probability that Lyden would have been

able to obtain investors, and/or alternatively, sell or license Lyden's footwear patents to

one or more prospective buyers or licensees.

209. On information and belief, Nike, Inc. was aware of Lyden's footwear patents

and his efforts to attract investors for a small business start-up company, and/or

alternatively, sell or license Lyden's footwear patents, but intended to interfere with and

disrupt Lyden's business efforts by unlawfully and willfully infringing the Lyden '883

Patent. In this regard, Nike, Inc. has taken the first mover position in the marketplace

from Lyden, and taken public goodwill and profits away from Lyden and instead claimed

such for Nike, Inc.

210. Moreover, during the prosecution ofNike, Inc.'s later filed patents

substantially directed to the same subject matter as the earlier filed and/or issued

footwear patents of Lyden, Nike, Inc. committed fraud and inequitable conduct, and

violated its duty of disclosure with the U.S. Patent Office. Nike, Inc.'s actions were

intended to wrongfully obtain false title to the same intellectual property and take public


goodwill and profits away from Lyden with the intent to injure Lyden's business and

instead improve its own.

211. As a result ofNike, Inc.'s actions, Lyden has suffered economic harm,

including, but not limited to, loss of profits associated with the launch of a company with

the support of investors, and/or alternatively, the sale or license ofLyden's footwear

patents. Nike, Inc.'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.

212. Lyden believes that the aforementioned acts ofNike, Inc. were willful and

malicious, oppressive, and in conscious disregard of Lyden's rights, and that Nike, Inc.'s

acts described above were done with the deliberate intent to injure Lyden's business and

improve its own. Lyden is therefore entitled to punitive damages to punish their

wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage



214. Lyden has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic

relationships with current and prospective investors, purchasers, and/or licensees Lyden's

footwear patents.

215. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the

form of the ability to attract investors and launch a profitable new company, and/or

alternatively, to enter into profitable intellectual property purchase or license agreements

relating to Lyden's footwear patents.


216. Had Nike, Inc. refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct

described in this complaint, there is a substantial probability that Lyden would have been

able to obtain investors, and/or alternatively, sell or license Lyden's footwear patents to

one or more prospective buyers or licensees.

217. On information and belief, Nike, Inc. was aware of Lyden's footwear patents

and his efforts to attract investors for a small business start-up company, and/or

alternatively, sell or license Lyden's footwear patents, and knew or should have known

that its actions would interfere with and disrupt Lyden's business efforts by unlawfully

and willfully infringing the Lyden '883 Patent. In this regard, Nike, Inc. has taken the

first mover position in the marketplace from Lyden, and taken public goodwill and profits

away from Lyden and instead claimed such for Nike, Inc.

218. Moreover, during the prosecution ofNike, Inc.'s numerous later filed patents

substantially directed to the same subject matter as the earlier filed and /or issued Lyden

footwear patents, Nike, Inc. committed fraud and inequitable conduct and violated its

duty of disclosure with the U.S. Patent Office. Nike, Inc. knew or should have known

that its actions would lead to its wrongfully obtaining false title to the same or conflicting

intellectual property, and take public goodwill and profits away from Lyden and thereby

injure Lyden's business efforts and instead improve its own.


including, but not limited to, loss of profits associated with the launch of his company Q

Branch, Inc. with the support of investors, and/or alternatively, the sale or license of

Lyden's footwear patents. Nike Inc.'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in

causing this harm.


FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Conversion



221. During the prosecution ofNike, Inc.'s numerous later filed patent applications

which are directed to the substantially the same subject matter as the earlier filed and I or

issued Lyden patents, Nike, Inc. committed fraud and inequitable conduct, and/or

violated its duty of disclosure with the U.S. Patent Office.

222. Nike, Inc. intended to wrongfully obtain false title to the intellectual property,

and take public goodwill, company valuation, and potential profit away from Lyden, and

to instead claim it for Nike, Inc.'s own benefit. The desired and practical effect has been

to simultaneously harm Lyden's intellectual property and business efforts, and to improve

Nike, Inc.'s own. In this regard, Nike, Inc.'s actions resemble those of an intellectual

property "cattle rustler" which has succeeded in converting the intellectual property of

Lyden and using it to make and sell products under the Nike, Inc. "Swoosh" brand and

trademark.

223. Nike, Inc.'s wrongful actions in filing for and prosecuting numerous later filed

patent applications, including fraud and inequitable conduct, and/or the violation of its

duty of disclosure in order to convert the intellectual property rights of Lyden constitutes

a misuse of the U.S. Patent Office.


224. Lyden at no time consented, expressly or impliedly, to Nike, Inc.'s attempts to

attain false title to the same intellectual property associated with Lyden's patents, or to

Nike, Inc.'s willful infringement of the Lyden '883 Patent.

225. Nike, Inc. has knowingly made fraudulent representations and/or violated its

duty of disclosure while seeking patent protection for numerous inventions which were

previously disclosed by Lyden to Nike, Inc. and known by Nike, Inc. to already be the

subject of Lyden's issued and/or pending patent applications in the U.S. Patent Office.

Nike Inc.'s numerous acts of fraud and conversion of the intellectual property of Lyden

when seeking and /or obtaining its conflicting patents has diminished the value of

Lyden's patents, and also that ofhis small business start-up Q Branch, Inc.

226. As a result ofNike Inc.'s actions, Lyden has suffered economic harm,

including, but not limited to, loss of profits associated with the launch of a company with

the support of investors, and/or alternatively, the sale or license of Lyden's footwear

patents. Nike, Inc.'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.

227. Nike, Inc. has infringed the Lyden '883 Patent beginning on July 3, 2012.

Nike, Inc. has obtained unjust and substantial benefit from the sale of infringing products

to third parties without Lyden's consent and without paying Lyden for the value of the

Lyden '883 Patent.

228. Nike Inc.'s improper willful infringement of the '883 Patent has interfered

with and diminished Lyden's rights in that property.

229. Allowing Nike, Inc. to retain the benefits received as a result of its wrongful

acts would unjustly benefit Nike, Inc. at Lyden's expense.


230. Lyden is entitled to an award of the value of the damages associated with the

willful infringement of the Lyden '883 Patent, and Nike, Inc. then wrongfully taking the

first mover position in the marketplace and public goodwill for its own benefit.

231. In addition, Lyden is entitled to restitution ofNike Inc.'s ill-gotten gains, but

also for the injury Nike, Inc. has caused Lyden as a result of its numerous acts of fraud

and conversion which have harmed and diminished the value of Lyden's intellectual

property and business efforts.


malicious, oppressive, and in conscious disregard of Lyden's rights, and that Nike Inc.'s


improve its own. Lyden is therefore entitled to punitive damages to punish Nike Inc.'s


FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fraud



234. Nike, Inc. has engaged in unfair competition and unlawful business practices

by fraudulently representing itself to have been the first to invent footwear and apparel

that had been previously invented by Lyden, and taking the frrst mover position in the

marketplace, public goodwill and revenue due Lyden for the Nike, Inc. brand.

235. Nike, Inc. has committed fraud and inequitable conduct, and violated its duty

of disclosure in the U.S. Patent Office in order to gain false ownership of intellectual


property rights of Lyden, engaged in conversion, and intentional interference with

prospective economic advantage, as alleged herein, all in an effort to gain and maintain

an unfair competitive advantage regarding Lyden's intellectual property and business

efforts.

236. Nike, Inc. has willfully infringed upon the Lyden '883 Patent, and has

improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage of Lyden's efforts and

investment in this patent.

237. In light ofNike, Inc.'s conduct, it would be inequitable to allow Nike, Inc. to

retain the benefit of the funds and public goodwill obtained by Nike, Inc. through fraud,

conversion, and unlawful use of Lyden's intellectual property.

238. Nike, Inc.'s fraudulent and unfair business practices have unjustly minimized

Lyden's competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Lyden to suffer

damages.

239. Nike, Inc.'s numerous and repeated fraudulent actions with respect to Lyden's

intellectual property, and its fraudulent athlete promotions, advertising, marketing and

sales efforts which have been aided by the improper provision of performance enhancing

drugs and like substances to some of Nike, Inc.'s sponsored athletes in order to gain

unfair competitive advantage over its business rivals in the sporting goods industry, both

provide evidence of a pattern of fraudulent and unfair business practices which have and

will continue to harm and thwart free and fair competition in the marketplace.


including, but not limited to, loss of profits associated with the launch of a small business

start-up with the support of investors, and/or alternatively, the sale or license of Lyden's


footwear patents. Nike, Inc.'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this

harm.

241. Nike, Inc. should be compelled to disgorge the profits and other benefits it has

obtained in violation of law, and be enjoined from further fraudulent, unlawful, unfair,

and deceptive business practices.




improve its own. Lyden is therefore entitled to punitive damages to punish Nike, Inc.'s


SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unjust Enrichment I Restitution



244. Nike, Inc. has been and now is directly infringing the '883 patent in Oregon,

in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things,

manufacturing, using, selling, importing and /or offering for sale footwear that infringe

one or more claims ofthe '883 patent, to the injury of Lyden.

245. Nike, Inc. has filed numerous patents substantially directed to the same

subject matter as the earlier filed and/or issued footwear patents of Lyden, and then

committed fraud and inequitable conduct, and violated its duty of disclosure with the U.S.

Patent Office. Nike, Inc.'s actions were intended to wrongfully obtain false title to the


same intellectual property and take public goodwill and profits away from Lyden with the

intent to injure Lyden's business and instead improve its own. As a result ofNike, Inc.'s

actions, Lyden has suffered economic harm, including, but not limited to, loss of profits

associated with the launch of a company with the support of investors, and/or

alternatively, the sale or license of Lyden's footwear patents.

246. Nike, Inc.'s numerous and repeated fraudulent actions with respect to Lyden's

intellectual property, and its fraudulent athlete promotions, advertising, marketing and

sales efforts which have been aided by the improper provision of performance enhancing

drugs and like substances to some of Nike, Inc.'s sponsored athletes in order to gain

unfair competitive advantage over its business rivals in the sporting goods industry, both

provide evidence of a pattern of fraudulent and shamelessly unfair business practices

which have and will continue to harm Lyden, and others, and thwart free and fair

competition in the marketplace.

24 7. Nike, Inc. has and continues to receive benefits in the form of market share,

sales revenue and profits on products which have been represented by Nike, Inc. as being

covering by patents, which upon information and belief, are invalid because ofNike,

Inc.'s actions of fraud and inequitable conduct, and violation of its duty of disclosure in

the U.S. Patent Office. The certain exclusivity which Nike, Inc. has been granted and

improperly enjoyed as a result of its misconduct has resulted in other potential

competitors in the sporting goods industry not being able to provide a variety of similar

products, but also possibly at lower prices. As a result, Lyden and the general public

have and will continue to be harmed.





improve its own. Lyden is therefore entitled to punitive damages to punish Nike, Inc.'s


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert M. Lyden, respectfully prays for judgment against

Defendant, Nike, Inc., as follows:

1. A judgment declaring that Nike, Inc. has infringed one or more claims of the '883

patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

2. A judgment declaring that Nike, Inc. has willfully infringed one or more claims of

the '883

patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

3. A preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting Nike, Inc. and its officers,

directors, employees, agents, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, and all others

acting in concert with Nike, Inc. or on its behalf from further infringing the '883 patent;

4. An award to Lyden of damages to compensate for Nike, Inc.'s past and present

acts of infringement of the '883 patent, including costs, and prejudgment and post

judgment interest;

5. An award to Lyden of enhanced damages due to Nike, Inc.'s willful infringement

of the '883 patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;


6. A judgment and award to Lyden in an amount to be determined by the Court and

increased as provided by applicable law due to Nike, Inc.'s intentional interference with

Lyden's prospective economic advantage;


increased as provided by applicable law due to Nike, Inc.'s negligent interference with

Lyden's prospective economic advantage;


increased as provided by applicable law due to Nike, Inc.'s conversion of Lyden's

intellectual property;


increased as provided by applicable law due to Nike. Inc.'s fraud and/or violation of its

duty of disclosure in the U.S. Patent Office, and Lyden's many and repeated efforts to

communicate and oppose Nike, Inc.'s improper actions;


increased as provided by applicable law due to Nike, Inc.'s improper and fraudulent

athlete promotions efforts involving the provision and use of performance enhancing

drugs, or like substances to promotional athletes in order to gain an unfair competitive

advantage in the marketplace over Lyden and others, and associated fraud on the general

public;

11. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning

of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Lyden his reasonable attorneys' fees; and,

12. For any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the

circumstances.


JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff Robert M. Lyden respectfully requests a trial by jury of any and all issues

so triable that are raised herein or which hereinafter may be raised in this action.

DATED: April18, 2013

Respectfully Submitted By:

~~$.~ Robert M. Lyden 18261 S.W. Fallatin loop Aloha, OR 97007 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (971) 219-1200


Lyden v. Nike

Documents

joan benoit samuelson

rearfoot strike zone

tunit soccer shoe

club athletics west

sporting goods industry

advantageous economic relationships

prospective economic advantage

performance enhancing drugs